- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:29:41 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Joshue O Connor wrote: >> 4) Finally it should be appraised just for what it is - a mechanism for >> describing the relationships between data cells in complex tables that >> is useful for blind and VIP and we need to explicitly keep it as such. > > One issue here, from my point of view, is that the attribute name is a > serious mismatch for that function.... which leads to major author > confusion as to what should go in this attribute. Yes, I agree. > Would it make sense to add a datastructure attribute (or some other more > suitable name), require UAs to look for the relationships between data > cells in that attribute and then in @summary in that order, and make use > of @summary a validator warning or some such? And make sure that the > spec has some examples of tables and corresponding @datastructure values. It may be best to leave it as it is (in particular to support backwards compatibility) and start raising awareness of @summary soley as a descriptor for data cell relationships. Dropping the word "Purpose" from the original HTML4 DTD would help. [1] Cheers Josh [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#adef-summary
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 08:30:31 UTC